Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Saturday April 08, 2006 @02:46PM
from the executive-summary dept.

Lars Lehtonen writes to tell us that Bruce Perens has posted the text of his LinuxWorld press conference. In his talk he takes a look at many of the hot topics surrounding the open source community including ODF, NTP vs RIM, and GPLv3. From the article: "It's interesting to note that Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist implicated in scandal with Republican Tom Delay, was employed by Bill Gates' dad's law firm "Preston Gates", a political proxy for Microsoft. Microsoft succeeded in lobbying both Republicans and Democrats to oppose ODF."

"It's interesting to note that Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist implicated in scandal with Republican Tom Delay, was employed by Bill Gates' dad's law firm "Preston Gates", a political proxy for Microsoft. Microsoft succeeded in lobbying both Republicans and Democrats to oppose ODF."

And this means what, exactly? Abramoff pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, but didn't have much of anything to do with Microsoft or ODF.

This seem to be a nice set of coincidences, but nothing more. If you are going to allege something sinister, please do it with evidence or proof. Throwing a bunch of random things out doesn't really mean much to anybody but gullible leftist slashbot.

Not much yet. It's just a set of dots which, if they could be connected, would make a very interesting picture indeed. But I agree, the dots haven't been connected. Yet.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, but didn't have much of anything to do with Microsoft or ODF.

Doesn't mean a thing.

The way this works is, the prosecutor targets a sleazeball who's got connections. He puts together a portfolio of charges on him that, if half of them were proved, would put Mr. Sleaze in jail for the half life of a proton. In exchange for only having to endure being sodomized for three or four years, Mr. Sleaze agrees to hand the prosecutor the ends of all the webs he's been holding.

Microsoft and the Gates family may be on the other end of one of those threads. Or they may not; or even if they are it may not in the prosecutor's view be the best place to start. The prosecutor might also decide to make examples of one or two individuals and leave it at that.

I think what you mean is that it's not suspicious, or it doesn't indicate wrongdoing, or perhaps that it's not relevant to Mr. Perens' point and thus possibly constitutes the creation of unfair innuendo by Mr. Perens.

But it's certainly still interesting, at least to me. If nothing else because it demonstrates once again exactly how small the pool of actually empowered people in America is.

Sometimes when you think a connection might be there, the best you can do is put that connection in front of empowered people who might find something. Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for Gates. I'd imagine the main thing on the agenda would be anti-trust, but competition with Free Software in government might be there as well. After all, we have had multiple published incidents where US diplomats lobbied a foreign government not to make a pro-free-software decision.

Well, I'm married and have a kid, and thus have more balance in my life than Eric and a lot more than Richard. In their defense, I'm not sure that either one can help it. But I won't stop showering, don't worry.

I want people to look into this stuff and find more evidence. I also want people to understand that we are touching the highest level of politics. I understand that some of this will only hit blogs, because it's less substantiated. I can deal with that that without making X-files out of it.

I don't mean to nitpick, but when you say you are "more balanced" because you are married and have a kid, you seem to imply that someone without a kid and not married is somehow "imbalanced". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but that statement can be easily misconstrued. Plenty of people are lacking "balance" that are married and have kids, just as single people without kids are as well.

Well, list the most important things in your life, in order, and that will tell you a lot.

For me, it used to be that Open Source was #1. For Richard, Free Software always will be. For me now, being a dad is #1. And I find that I can look at Open Source with more objectivity because of this.

The biggest Republican lobbyist of the current generation, Abramoff, worked into his power position at the law firm of the father of the richest man in the world, Bill Gates. Gates was a certified monopolist, but the incoming Republican administration let him keep operating his monopoly. That takes a lot of lobbying and money. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bribing Republican politicians for his corporate clients.Those aren't random facts. That's not a coincidence. Those are leads. When we talk about them m

IMO I am seeing some astroturfing from the pro-software-patent camp around this speech, and not only on Slashdot. Only folks who can see IP numbers, etc., of people posting could track that down, and even then it might be difficult, so all I can say is that some comments do look suspicious.

When the Republican Party astroturfs, they call it >ratfucking [wikipedia.org]: Nixonian "dirty tricks". Especially when it's astrolling, like calling people who are interested in the links from Gates to Bush through Abramoff "gullible leftists". What's next is reverse astrolling: an organized campaign posting impossible rightwing conspiracy trolls, to paint any deduction of Republican fascism with a dismissable troll brush.

The Watergate crowd seems to have only recently gotten the hang of exploiting Christianity. We're

Well, they're doing that rat thing here on Slashdot, and so on. I guess we need to trust the moderators to deal with the substance-free objection-for-its-sake postings, to correct over-moderation when necessary, to correct badly-motivated down-mods, and so on.

It was nice before alt.tasteless invaded rec.pets.cats too. And it was nice when it was DARPANet, and when it was BitNET. But there were fewer people to learn really different things from.We think we learned about metamods, but Slashdot's SW doesn't protect from the anonymous TrollMod. The metamods would be a lot more powerful if some social circuits were closed with a "web of trust" more than the current haphazard system.

Meanwhile, I personally favor extreme politeness until betrayed even a little bit anon

It was nice when you weren't automatically assigned the role of conspirator just because you didn't believe in a conspiracy.

I shouldn't have to provide definitive proof against a conspiracy in order to engage in this discussion. But until I prove the negative, I'm considered a "substance-free objection-for-its-sake" poster. Until I can prove that a Microsoft/Abramoff/Republican conspiracy to destroy Free Software does not exist, I'm just a ratfucker.

All I said was that the tactics are Nixonian, and used the technical political term "ratfucking", which also derives from Nixon - still standard in the Republican Party. I said that when Republicans do it, that's what it's called. So I didn't actually imply that Republicans are doing it, just that they do it. Any inference that Republicans are doing the ratfucking we're discussing in this subthread is on your part. Though I'll take credit for helping you do it. Because they're ratfuckers.I'm especially insp

I was going with the idea [slashdot.org] that this subthread was really about Nixonian ratfucking, which it's become, until I reread my earlier post [slashdot.org] from which it branched.

In which I summarized that the astroturf ratfucking we're discussing follows the justified accusation that Republican Abramoff worked for Bill Gates II to help Microsoft get political favors. We're not talking about software patents in this subthread so much as the Abramoff Republican bribery/favors network serving Microsoft. So we're talking about a Re

Abramoff's TrollMod minions don't want us talking about the White House bed he shares with Gates, because that's us working together to connect the dots by finding more evidence and logical connections.

Well, the point is that politicians in Massachussets were heavily lobbied to oppose ODF. Even the Governor, a presidential candidate, rated 2nd by the last Republican leadership congress and thus likely to be in the primary - seems to be doing some realpolitic about the lobbying.

Hm, do we have no discovery process since Abramoff plead guilty? In that case we may never know what he was talking about. But he was working for Gates. Did he take a bullet for his boss by pleaing guilty?

Hm, do we have no discovery process since Abramoff plead guilty? In that case we may never know what he was talking about. But he was working for Gates. Did he take a bullet for his boss by pleaing guilty?

It seems to me that, based on the amount of money spent on lobbying by Microsoft (some $360,000) they didn't hire abramhoff for much. They're well below average for abramhoff's clients, even though they were the #1 contributor to campaign funds.

Microsoft learned back in the 90's that if you don't contribute to politicians funds, you have almost no voice on capital hill. Since then, they've been pretty strong in contributing to various campaigns, but of a largely bi-partison nature.

Given the small amount of money spent on abramhoff, it seems unlikely that they hired him for much of anything serious.

Hm, do we have no discovery process since Abramoff plead guilty? In that case we may never know what he was talking about. But he was working for Gates. Did he take a bullet for his boss by pleaing guilty?

it did strike me odd how *incredibly* fast everything was tidied up with a guilty plea in this case. my money was on a convenient stabbing in a holding cell, but this would have been second.

Don't be silly! 2002 was the year of desktop Linux. The vast majority of people are now happily using Linux on their desktop, and Microsoft is deparately trying to grab back market share with Vista. Plus, I've heard the new Apple computers will now dual boot to Linux. They have to, after all thats where all the applications are now. Windows, really is going to be relegated to controller applications for cell phones and CD players. Its days as a full-sized computer OS are numbered.

Oh... and Sony is going to buy Microsoft. I read it just today on Slashdot.

To take a frivolous comment seriously, we seem to have folded up the vendor organization that used to do publicity for desktop linux - which I spoke for - in favor of efforts by OSDL, freedesktop.org, etc. Since I have a lot to do, that's no problem. But I'm available to give a speech about the desktop if anyone wants one.

When they finally catch the Zodiac Killer I'm sure Bruce Perens will try to find a "Microsoft angle" to him as well.

This is nothing but FUD that plays right into the scandal of the day. Perens needs to provide some proof that Abramoff was directly involved in the ODF issue as part of a lobbying effort by Microsoft, Gate's dad or the Easter Bunny. Otherwise I'd say he needs to keep his conspiracy theories to himself.

"It's interesting to note that Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist implicated in scandal with Republican Tom Delay, was employed by Bill Gates' dad's law firm "Preston Gates", a political proxy for Microsoft. Microsoft succeeded in lobbying both Republicans and Democrats to oppose ODF."

What is interesting about it is the fact that it is lobbying. Lobbying is only organized, legalized bribery! Microsoft lobbies both Republicans and Democrats because it really doesn't care who is in power as long as they can buy the legislation they want. The fact that it was found illegal is something they will probably take care of with the next round of legislation (and partly paid for by Microsoft along with all other companies looking for a special favor).

Republican, Democrat, who cares? What we must get rid of is the entire idea of "pay for legislation"!

An article several months ago in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] described more about how Jack Abramoff took money to influence congressional proceedings. In this case, it was to scuttle a bill that would have prohibited state lotteries from going online. As with his work with Indian
casinos, Abramoff pulled strings to get otherwise anti-gambling members of Congress to vote against a law prohibiting companies like eLottery from conducting lotteries over the Internet.

What is interesting about it is the fact that it is lobbying. Lobbying is only organized, legalized bribery! Microsoft lobbies both Republicans and Democrats because it really doesn't care who is in power as long as they can buy the legislation they want. The fact that it was found illegal is something they will probably take care of with the next round of legislation (and partly paid for by Microsoft along with all other companies looking for a special favor).

{sigh} well, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson from Mars Attacks, "... and I gotta tell ya, two outa three ain't bad."

On the other hand, the rights granted to corporate entities are not enshrined in the Constitution: they are of much more recent vintage. If those were revoked or severely restricted, problems with undue influence in government might improve substantially. In any event, we aren't talking about "redress of grievances", in the sense that a organization is being unfairly impacted by the law. We ar

Sadly, only the Democrats seem inclined to do anything about unethical lobbying, and sadly, only are because they happen to be the party out of power. I fully expect the roles to reverse when the Dems get a few more members in congress.But not all lobbying is bad, even if backed by corporate money. Businesses do have a legitimate interest in getting their concerns before congress, and if a lobbyist is the only way to do it, then that's what they have to do. We wouldn't need lobbying in a fair world, but thi

You present a false dichotomy: "Businesses do have a legitimate interest in getting their concerns before congress, and if a lobbyist is the only way to do it, then that's what they have to do."

You imply that lobbying is the only way for a business to address its concerns to congress. That is certainly NOT the case. Lobbying is a way for a business to press its concerns above those of the common people that can't afford to spend that money bribing their representative (or senator).

Money to the EFF could indeed help, if there is enough of it.Just voting isn't going to help unless there is a candidate who has taken a position on the issue, and those are hard to find. More useful would be to become active in the nominating process to get a supportive candidate on the ballot. You better make sure he's a true believer before you put a lot of effort into his campaign though, or he's likely to change his mind later when someone outbids you.

We are given some rather improbable conspiracy theory around the ODF affair, a long wail about software patents, a few digs at Microsoft, some very tentative ideas about DRM and a slapdown of Linus Torvalds, something that now seems almost obligatory every time the big cheeses of the Linux world open their mouth. I wonder why they feel they have to run Torvalds down. Are they worried they won't be seen as following the correct right-on line and might be made to stand on their own in the playground? Frightened, perhaps, that Big Richard Stallman will say they are sissies and chuck them out of his gang? Whatever the reason it comes over as pretty darn unedifying.

Articles about how awful the patent system is are ten a penny. What is very hard to find are folks who have thought this one through, have some cogent and realistic proposals, and who are prepared to build support for change among those in a position to change things. Anyway, it doesn't sound as if Mr Perens will be one. Big cheese massage sounds more his gig.

Or maybe they are trying to get Linus to understand that while he is "god" as far as the one particular piece of software goes when it comes to things that effect many hundreds of pieces of software he should try and act in a cooperative manner.

Yep, everyone has one. Here is mine - copied from my blog http://jambarama.blogspot.com./ [jambarama.blogspot.com] As a warning it is long (really long) but I really put a lot of thought into this and I think I've proposed some good realistic solutions (not the "eliminate all patents" bull that gets posted to/. so often).

What is a patent supposed to be?

A patent is supposed to be a well defined property right that gives an owner (not necessarily inventor) a monopoly, or significant competitive advantage, on a device. It should be clear what the patent covers, enforceable, innovative and temporary.

Why give monopoly power?

Innovation has positive externalities. Meaning it benefits more than just the creator. A negative externality means that it is under-produced. To get around this problem, we give away temporary monopolies so that creators capture more (not all) of the benefits they produce for others. The temporary monopoly with the new invention makes people better off than not having the invention would.

The trade off is that the workings of the invention must be public. Any expert in the field should be able to use your patent application to recreate your invention. That way, when the invention falls into the public domain, everyone may benefit. This is why the government offers patents.

What are patents currently?

Patents today are the right to TRY to exclude others from using a property right granted exclusively to you. They are not often innovative (prior art issues)1, often held invalid and most of the time not very well defined.

Why do we care?

This is actually a great question to always ask. So patents aren't doing what they were designed to do. So what? I argue there are many problems. Patents are designed to incent innovation. They may in fact discourage it (as we'll see later). Legitimate patents may be invalidated and the uncertainty with not knowing the validity of a patent has negative externalities (so it causes harm to many, so we have too much of it). Patents may deter entry into markets, so monopolies can be extended. Patents may harm consumer welfare. All these things are bad.

Why are we so far off?

In brief, because of a poor incentive system. It was designed just fine, but some problems crept up, weren't fixed and it has gotten worse. Don't believe me? Here are some statistics. In the United States there are 350,000 patents filed each year, and 200,000 accepted. That isn't to say that 150,000 are rejected, there is a backlog of about 750,000 patents as of 2004. Does anyone think there is that much innovation going on in the United States?

Over-Patenting

One of the biggest problems is over patenting. As the previous statistics should show, we are filing and receiving way too many patents. I don't know what the right number is, but we'll see that 350,000 a year must be too high.

Over patenting is bad for a lot of reasons. Worthless patents swamp valuable ones in the examination process. Which patents are worth carefully examining? Patents on non-innovative ideas are terribly harmful to competition. The value of a patent (and enforceability) is diluted with frivolous patents.

Problems with Filing a Patent

Because patents are first come first receive, there is the incentive to file early to beat out competitors. Many patents are filed just in case a discovery turns out to matter in the future. If the inventor (usually a firm) doesn't know the value of a patent, there really is no way the PTO can know.

The PTO bears the burden of proof. Meaning your application is considered valid until proven invalid. Patents are relatively inexpensive to file for (the fees differ on a number of factors) but since the PTO spends an average of 18 hours on each patent, they are relatively expensive to handle fo

Strengthening the patent system by asking the governments left arm to sue the right arm will not happen; would you expect a system to screw the people to be replaced by a system of the government screwing itself? To put it another way, the government would continually receive flak from all corners for doing so.

Now strengthening the system by making what is patented sounds sensible. However this would lower the "success" metrics of patents/year and actually might allow non-US companies to sell innovative p

I have cogent and realistic proposal for the software patent system, namely shut it down. Entirely, immediately, and without compensation. Or perhaps you meant "a wimpy compromise that papers over the cracks and appeases vested interests"? Software patents are conceptually broken and no half-solution will improve them.

Abramoff worked for ANYBODY that would give him cash. His buddies of old, Ralph Reed, Norquist, would often take the opposing sides. And they made millions, unprecedented wealth, in using DeLay as an on/off switch for introducing or burying legislation. It was government for sale.

And NO, kids, it was not business as usual. This is what happens when one party takes over everything, and that party only represents moneyed interests.

And NO, kids, it was not business as usual. This is what happens when one party takes over everything, and that party only represents moneyed interests.

Slightly OT, but how do you know that? For one thing, both parties - I daresay the vast majority of politicians primarily represent moneyed interests. What scares the hell out of me isn't what Abramoff did, but the idea that there may be hundred more like him in Washington right now.

The story was in the Rolling Stone, oh moderators. Not to mention every decent paper in the country for the last ten years or so. Ralph Reed, Norquist, and Abramoff were old buddies in the Reagan era college scene, and they've been part of the Dewey, Fleeceum and Howe circuit since at least then.Wird fact I read: Abramoff wrote "Red Scorpion", a movie produced basically by the South African secret service and the CIA. Interesting stuff: seems Abramoff got his start working as a factotum for the South Africa

This is why reading Bruce is better than reading some random guy on slashdot. The man knows his stuff. Go RT whole FA. It's worth it just to hear some one say it straight without screwing something up.

Am I the only one who think/. should have a tinfoil hat category besides Politics?Seriously, Mr. Bruce Perens couldn't have written a better script for Syriana II. I'll be blunt. ODF and GNUv3 rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper than the usual Bostonian political scuffle. Given enough spare time to ponder about politics, even Boston's Big-Dig project could be tided to Microsoft somehow.

C'mon. We all know Microsoft's deep pocket reaches everyone, but the speculation forgets to mention that Open Source isn

Well, they could do a pretty decent job of stopping you from distributing it or using it anywhere that is publicly visible. Now, the law doesn't stop meth labs, but I don't want those who choose to develop or use Free Software to have to operate like a meth lab.

It used to be that people thought that the law had no real mechanism that could touch the Internet. Enough people like Skylarov have gone to jail for writing the wrong software or have had their net worth made negative through the need to mount a legal defense against an unjust civil or criminal claim. I don't want Tridge or Jeremy Allison to go to jail for reverse-engineering Windows file and printer sharing or infringing on some improperly-granted patent. I don't want to go to jail for using it.

"Enough people like Skylarov have gone to jail for writing the wrong software"

He was the first to be prosecuted under US DMCA section 1201(b)(1)(A), prohibition on trafficking in a circumvention technology because FBI wasn't competent enough to know Sklyarov didn't own the software, but ElcomSoft did. Even Adobe realized the mistake later and asked for release of Sklyarov. But that is not to say that what ElcomSoft did was wrong. I am simply saying, Federal case against Sklyarov was dropped, and our lega

Mr. Bruce Perens, to me, sounds bitter and impatient how ODF and Open Source is being adapted around the country, and the world.

Who says that rate is slow? ODF is less than a year old. [wikipedia.org] Yet, two state governments have moved adopt it. Can you name any other technology state governments have adopted so quickly?

Let's look at what Peren is angry about again:

[Character Assasination via Boston Globe]... Microsoft succeeded in lobbying both Republicans and Democrats to oppose ODF.... There's a chilling effect that stems from the harassment of Quinn: other government CIOs are being scared away from the Open Format issue because now they know that Microsoft will do its best to end their careers if they even try.

That's hardly what you have charged.

I'd like to see you address any of that with more than insults and "say it aint so." The short of it is that M$ used it's money and influence to bamboozle decision makers, the public and other CTO's. The CTO's, who are more difficult to fool than the others, are being threatened. The facts of the case seem to support Perens on all of the above.

If you are not angry about the end of Quinn's career over file formats, you have not thought enough about it.

Again, this is no surprise. You misunderstood my post. First, I wasn't insulting or attacking anyone. I was simply stating the current political baffle that is going on in Boston. Gavin and Pacheco had long standing grudge against Mass. republican party since Jane Swift. Gavin is on the prowl to take over Romney, and Pacheco is just a dimwit following democratic party line with fellow dickard, Gavin. IBM and Sun is behind ODF in Boston where probably very significant portion of Mass's diminishing soft

Less insulting than "bitter and impatient" and redirected but still insulting.

this is politics, not Matrix. Quinn's getting the boot isn't some mighty act of evil genius, but rather piling BS that is going on in Boston's Politics as Usual.

More of the same, "Say it ain't so," and it's no harder to understand than it is likely. The CTO is not a political position. File formats are not the kinds of things politicians battle over because no one cares

And then you have this story, which seems to put him firmly in "KOOK" territory.

That, at least, puts him in the same category as most well-known F/OSS advocates. Apparently outspoken is the new sensible.

Why's he so famous in the Linux crowd?

He was project leader of Debian for a bit, and was the primary author of 'The Open Source Definition' (an obfuscated version of the Free Software Definition, based on the Debian version, but with more equivocation). For more information, see bhis bio [perens.com].

The Free Software Definition published by FSF did not exist when I created the Debian Free Software Guidlines. It still did not exist when I later re-labeled the DFSG to be the Open Source Definition. Richard put it up later, I think years later. I guess he put it up because felt a need to differentiate from Open Source. Eric Raymond tried to drive an IMO entirely unnecessary rift between Free Software and Open Source, and some of Richard's later reaction stems from that.

He was the leader of the Debian Project from 1996-1997 and founder of various other projects such as The Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/ [opensource.org] ) and Software in the Public Interest ( http://www.spi-inc.org/ [spi-inc.org] )

Oh yeah, just like any other slashdotter - who happened to co-found the open source initiative and found the linux standard base. Exactly like any other random slashdotter who's written 20 books on open source, under open source licenses, published by prentice hall.

Really, why is this troll modded up? How many slashdotters were project head of Debian or the first open source evangelist to work in top management at a multi-billion dollar company? You might not like perens' views, but he's a whole fuckload more qualified to make these kinds of statements than the average living-in-mom's-basement slashdotter.

Because he helped START the open source movement, and has had many significant contributions which have helped advance open source. He didn't just talk about it, he made things happen - both by talking and by doing.

Speak for yourself. Many of us DO want to read Microsoft news. I may choose Linux for my personal computers (unless hardware is an issue such as ATI tuner/AiW cards) and more and more so for the office, but I don't deny that Microsoft does produce some great products.

I run Linux for four primary reasons:

1. I disagree with Microsoft's anti-customer policies as of late, including no de-activation, their suing of customers, and their DRM-infested media player2. I believe Microsoft has been abusing their monopoly status, especially since SmartSuite and WordPerfect have been rendered impotent in the marketplace3. because I like the KDE desktop far more than I like Explorer (tabbed file browsing is great. *nix shell scripting is undeniably superior to scripting on Windows and konsole is a wonderful console manager)4. Everything, and I mean everything can be automated on Linux/Unix/UNIX where maintenance is concerned. and nearly all maintenance can be performed live. Unix doesn't have to play the "let's redefine the term 'downtime'" game

With that said, I'm interested in what Microsoft is doing with their Linux lab. I'd be interested to see whether they release Visual Studio (Kdevelop is great, but it's no comparison to Microsoft's IDE) and Microsoft Office for Linux. I'm interested in watching the price of Microsoft Office now that OpenOffice is nipping at Microsoft Office's heels in terms of usability/functionality. I'm interested in whether or not Microsoft adjusts their marketing to indicate true TCO of each environment. I'm interested in what Monad has to offer. I'm interested in whether or not I'll be able to watch HD-DVD and Blu-Ray media at FULL resolution on my 2048x1536 CRT displays, or if I will have to downgrade to lower-resolution LCD screens.

Believe me, although some of us hate Microsoft's current actions, we actually view software products as tools, and Linux is not the BFH that is right for all problems.

I've seen this posted many times and I wonder why it has become such a catchphrase. I use Linux because I LIKE Linux. I used Windows for years before and I just plain like Linux better. I think that the majority of Linux users would say the same. It's the users who don't like Linux that keep advancing that meme.

You can tell those "write some code" trolls: I published ModelSecurity, substantial Free Software, in 2005 and am working on other programs now. In 2005 I also published in Law (speech accepted for an American Bar Association conference) and Economics (on First Monday), and spoke in front of the UN.

Nice troll, but what the heck does that have to do with a business plan?Let's run through it:

- We used to run asp.net - it is slower/less reponsive and more memory intensive than LAMP
- Licensing - we spent money on exchange and SQL server but will be saving the money on upgrades. We develop solutions for SQL Server for clients who want Windows, but since we've removed SQL Server from production and now use it only for development, future upgrades (MySQL and Postgres) will be - yep, the cost

Microsoft has another connection to the Abramoff scandal. Microsoft e.g. supports IPI, a right wing republican organisation which is involved in the Abramoff scandal - in fact its lobbyist Giovanetti openly had to admit it [ipi.org] when his organisation was accused.

A quick Google for "ODF" would indicate that it has something to do with either the Oregon Department of Forestry or something called the Open Document Format. Choosing between the two should be a fairly easy exercise for the reader. You should be able to surmise that in the context of Open Source and software in general, of the two, its most likely the Open Document Format. Unless, of course, you got caught up in the belief that there really IS a Lumber Cartel.